House passes bill to ban welfare in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores

[Fern]

Say someone has $50 of their money and $50 of government money. They want to buy $50 worth of groceries and $50 worth of booze. Under the current system they could buy this by use of the $50 in government cash for booze, and then $50 of their own money for food. Under your new idea they would be forced to spend the $50 in government money on food, making them spend the $50 of their own money on booze.

Either way they end up with $50 of food and booze each. It might make you feel better that they spent the government cash one way, but the outcome is entirely the same. I'm unwilling to pay for enforcement of a law that doesn't do anything.

Why dodge my question?

Otherwise, if we're giving them $50 for a specific purpose (to purchase $50 of food) it makes perfect sense to ensure that the $50 was actually spent of food.

You've repeated your arbitrary math example several times. It could as easily be as follows:

Say someone has $50 of their money and $50 of government money. They want to buy $0 worth of groceries and $100 worth of booze. Under the current system they could buy this by use of the $50 in government cash for booze, and then $50 of their own money for more booze. Under your new idea they would be forced to spend the $50 in government money on food, making them spend the $50 of their own money on booze.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Why dodge my question?

Otherwise, if we're giving them $50 for a specific purpose (to purchase $50 of food) it makes perfect sense to ensure that the $50 was actually spent of food.

You've repeated your arbitrary math example several times. It could as easily be as follows:

Fern

That wouldn't be much of a worry, they would be dead shortly from that. If you look at this from a practical perspective, so long as someone'e nongovernmental income exceeds the amount that they want to spend on booze, strippers, and gambling, this legislation will have no effect. I'm willing to bet that is the vast majority of recipients.

I'm not dodging your question, your question was just pointless so I ignored it. You want to waste government money on a fruitless enforcement mechanism that won't do anything. I don't want to waste government money. That is why I'm against this.

 

[chucky2]

I like where you're going with this. Lets just stop wasting money on something that's obviously being abused. Just cut the program completely. Those who complain, can be referred back to their community leaders for comment on why these communities failed generation after generation to produce people who wouldn't abuse the welfare system.

Good call!

 

[Fern]

That wouldn't be much of a worry, they would be dead shortly from that. If you look at this from a practical perspective, so long as someone'e nongovernmental income exceeds the amount that they want to spend on booze, strippers, and gambling, this legislation will have no effect. I'm willing to bet that is the vast majority of recipients.

I'm not dodging your question, your question was just pointless so I ignored it. You want to waste government money on a fruitless enforcement mechanism that won't do anything. I don't want to waste government money. That is why I'm against this.

So the result of this proposed rule in this example would be a saved life, yet you dismiss it?

I thought the whole purpose of providing this money was to prevent people from starving etc. If so, it only makes sense to ensure that the purpose is being met.

Fern

 

[monovillage]

So the result of this proposed rule in this example would be a saved life, yet you dismiss it?

I thought the whole purpose of providing this money was to prevent people from starving etc. If so, it only makes sense to ensure that the purpose is being met.

Fern

The answer is obviously you're a right wing republican monster that wants to starve children. We need to give those parents more money.

 

[fskimospy]

So the result of this proposed rule in this example would be a saved life, yet you dismiss it?

I thought the whole purpose of providing this money was to prevent people from starving etc. If so, it only makes sense to ensure that the purpose is being met.

Fern

That's definitely deserving of a /facepalm.

 

[chucky2]

So the result of this proposed rule in this example would be a saved life, yet you dismiss it?

I thought the whole purpose of providing this money was to prevent people from starving etc. If so, it only makes sense to ensure that the purpose is being met.

Fern

The whole purpose of this money is 1.) to keep these people voting for politicians who trump these programs to these same people abusing them, and 2.) to keep these same people placated so they don't riot because they're not getting any help from 'The Man', which is the same 'The Man' they bitch about.

Nothing more.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm more interested in why we are singling out strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. Others have mentioned this already, but do we want these support progams to only pay for necessities?

If we ban strip clubs, do we ban movie theatres as well?
If we ban movies, do we ban the purchase of books as well?
What about spending on education? That is not a necessity either.
What if they want to join a gym?

Government assistance should not be used for any of these. That is not what it is intended to provide.

 

[senseamp]

Well, if providing money to poor people to meet their basic needs is a big priority for Liberals, ensuring the money actually goes towards those needs should be a priority as well. Or, are we just throwing money at a problem to assuage our guilt or 'buy' some satisfaction in thinking we're 'good people'?

Fern

This does not ensure more money goes towards those needs though. It just makes people who used the EBT debit card at an ATM machine in a strip club use it at another ATM before they go to strip club. It's a waste of taxpayer money to reprogram the software to screen these ATMs, to accomplish nothing.